W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response?

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:36:09 +0100
Message-ID: <1330547769.24673.49.camel@home.hno.se>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
tor 2012-02-23 klockan 12:19 -0600 skrev Zhong Yu:
> Thank you both. So, "Connection:keep-alive" in 1.0 is very dependable
> in practice, server should keep the connection alive.
> If that's the case, shouldn't we remove the alarming languages in
> [part 1, A.1.2.]? They might be legitimate concerns in 1999, but no
> longer relevant today.
>    However, some experimental implementations of HTTP/1.0
>    persistent connections are faulty; for example, if a HTTP/1.0 proxy
>    server doesn't understand Connection, it will erroneously forward
>    that header to the next inbound server, which would result in a hung
>    connection.

This part is indeed obsolete today. The number of currently deployed
HTTP/1.0 proxies not knowing about Connection is very limited.

>    Clients are also encouraged to consider the use of Connection: keep-
>    alive in requests carefully; while they can enable persistent
>    connections with HTTP/1.0 servers, clients using them need will need
>    to monitor the connection for "hung" requests (which indicate that
>    the client ought stop sending the header), and this mechanism ought
>    not be used by clients at all when a proxy is being used.

I would think this is obsolete as well for the same reason as above.

I have not heard of any reports indicating any problems in these areas
for many many years (10+ I think). It may have been a problem at the
time RFC2616 was written, but at least I have no evidence at all that
these are seen as problems today.

It's also worth noting that the use of HTTP/1.0 is declining a lot,
making this pretty much a non-issue. And most of the remainign HTTP/1.0
agents which is likely to stick around for some significant time do not
send keep-alive.

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 20:36:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC